|
|
 |
|
|
Confidential evidence (149, 150,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Confidential evidence
Total judgments found: 87
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[A]s to the alleged non-disclosure of the desk audit’s report concerning [the] position [in question], the Tribunal holds that the [organization] lawfully withheld it on grounds of confidentiality.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4451
133rd Session, 2022
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision concerning her management-driven transfer.
Consideration 4
Extract:
In its reply, IFAD requests the Tribunal to disregard a letter sent by the members of the Joint Appeals Board to the President of IFAD on 5 May 2017.
The Tribunal notes that, contrary to what IFAD contends, the letter in question, which made no mention of the confidential nature of its contents, was not confidential and there is nothing to prove that the complainant came to possess it improperly. There is therefore no reason for the Tribunal to disregard this item of evidence.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality;
Judgment 4253
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who states that he was the victim of moral harassment, claims redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
[T]he complainant takes issue with the Organization for having disclosed to certain representatives of Persian Gulf countries confidential emails that he had sent in 2009 to his superiors condemning current practices in those countries, which, he alleges, made him lose all credibility in the region and had adverse consequences for his reputation and professional opportunities after his retirement. The JAAB agreed that “such disclosure is neither appropriate nor acceptable, as it was probably detrimental to the dignity and the reputation of the complainant”, but it considered that the complainant was barred from presenting this argument in his harassment grievance.
The disclosure of these confidential emails, which is not disputed by the Organization, constitutes a serious violation of the obligation of good faith and the duty of care. This plea is well founded.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; good faith;
Judgment 4247
129th Session, 2020
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges her dismissal from service for serious misconduct.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The complainant [...] requested a copy of the [...] report of alleged misconduct and the identity of the person who made this report. Before the Tribunal, the complainant focuses on the Administration’s refusal to disclose the identity of the reporter of the suspected misconduct and contends that this raises a presumption of prejudice and bias as does the refusal to disclose the requested documents. In the absence of compelling reasons justifying the disclosure of the identity of the reporter of suspected misconduct, this request is also rejected. As stated in the Internal Oversight Charter at Paragraph 15, reports of possible misconduct to the Director, IOD, shall be received on a confidential basis and may also be made anonymously. As well, the IOD’s Intranet site specifically provides that the reporting of suspected misconduct may be made confidentially or anonymously. Additionally, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the identity of the reporter is entirely irrelevant in relation to the nature of the allegations of misconduct by the complainant.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; whistle-blower;
Judgment 4217
129th Session, 2020
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to provide her with the record of the investigation that ensued after she filed a harassment complaint against her supervisor, and the fact that she received no compensation for the moral harassment that she claims to have suffered.
Considerations 2-3
Extract:
The complainant alleges, among other things, that her right to due process had been violated as a result of IFAD’s refusal to provide her with the investigation file containing, in addition to the investigation report itself, the minutes of the meetings held and the statements gathered. IFAD submits that it was not able to provide the file in question because the purpose of an investigation is not to share the findings with the person who lodged the complaint but to establish the facts. Nevertheless, it produced a redacted copy of the investigation report as an annex to its surrejoinder.
In view of the fact that it did so, the Tribunal considers that there is, in any event, no need to grant the request for disclosure of the other elements of the investigation file, which is not necessary to resolve the dispute.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; inquiry; investigation;
Considerations 4 and 6
Extract:
The Tribunal considers that IFAD erred in refusing to grant the complainant’s request for a copy of the report established by the AUO at the end of the investigation in respect of the supervisor mentioned in her harassment complaint.
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), 2700, under 6, 3214, under 24, or 3295, under 13). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must forward to a staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, for example, Judgments 3347, under 19 to 21, and 3831, under 17).
Of course, this obligation to disclose must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see, in particular, Judgments 3732, under 6, and 3640, under 19 and 20). Moreover, in this case the confidentiality of some information related to the investigation was expressly required by the provisions on this matter contained in section 4 of Annex I to the President’s Bulletin PB/2007/02 of 21 February 2007 concerning investigation processes.
Although it is true that IFAD produced a redacted copy of the investigation report as an annex to its surrejoinder, by refusing to provide the complainant with the report in question during the internal appeals procedure it nevertheless unlawfully deprived her of the possibility of usefully challenging the findings of the investigation. In this case, the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the report during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process. Indeed, the Tribunal’s case law recognises that, in some cases, the nondisclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied, including in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, 3831, cited above, under 16, 17 and 29, or 3995, under 5).
[...]
[I]t [...] follows from the above that the decision [...] whereby IFAD refused to provide the complainant with the investigation report drawn up by the AUO, is unlawful and must, therefore, be set aside.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2315, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3490, 3640, 3732, 3831, 3995
Keywords:
confidential evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; organisation's duties;
Judgment 4185
128th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was the victim of harassment, seeks redress for the injury he considers he has suffered.
Consideration 8
Extract:
Regarding the complainant’s allegation that the documentation provided by HRS to the Reports Committee was incomplete, the Tribunal observes from the submissions that HRS had removed annexes provided by the complainant which contained personal and private third-party information unrelated to the complainant’s performance of his duties, as well as unauthorized copies of official and confidential information. HRS, however, did attach the full list of the documents and offered to provide the documents themselves at the request of the Reports Committee, subject to the explicit authorization of the persons concerned. The Reports Committee agreed with the position of the Chief of HRS not to circulate all the files containing personal and private information as they could not be disclosed without the prior consent of the officials concerned. It noted that “[w]hile it was the official’s right to add his observations to the appraisal as foreseen by the Staff Regulations and procedures, its submission should also respect the Centre’s rules and procedures”. The Tribunal considers that the documents which were not forwarded were irrelevant to the question of the validity of the complainant’s performance appraisal report.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; performance evaluation;
Judgment 4181
128th Session, 2019
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the failure by the ICC to complete his performance appraisal in conformity with the applicable statutory provisions.
Consideration 1
Extract:
The ICC asks the Tribunal to protect the confidentiality of a document regarding another staff member which the complainant has disclosed in these proceedings without the consent of the staff member.
As this document, which is clearly marked “Staff in confidence”, was disclosed without the consent of the ICC and apparently without the consent of the staff member concerned, the Tribunal will protect its confidentiality and not refer to it.
Keywords:
confidential evidence;
Judgment 4167
128th Session, 2019
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director General’s decision to reject her complaint of psychological harassment and seeks compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.
Consideration 3
Extract:
In order to justify his refusal to disclose the remaining part of the report, the Director General invoked reasons of confidentiality.
According to Article 5 of Office Notice No. 06/11, “[t]he Joint Committee for Disputes shall carry out its activities with complete independence. It shall gather any information it requires to formulate an opinion. The members of the Committee shall be required to respect the confidential nature of information disclosed to them.”
The investigation report obviously contained information that the Committee needed to have access to in order to form an opinion on the merits of the complainant’s internal complaint. Since the members of the said committee are obliged to respect the requirement of confidentiality of the information disclosed to them, as expressly specified in the aforementioned Article 5, the Director General could not invoke this requirement to justify his refusal to disclose the entire report to the Committee.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; internal appeals body;
Judgment 4033
126th Session, 2018
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant primarily challenges his non-selection for a post.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant requested the disclosure of documents including a copy of the selection report. The Tribunal notes that the complainant was provided with a copy of the regular and adapted selection procedures and a copy of the selection report, redacted to remove references to the other three shortlisted candidates. The complainant contends that the remaining documents were requested to inform him of the reasoning behind the decisions not to select him and to cancel the competition. The Tribunal finds that the complainant has been fully informed of the reasoning for the cancellation of the competition, i.e. procedural flaws, and as such, considering the subject of the present case, this request for documents was speculative.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 4023
126th Session, 2018
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the validity of a competition procedure in which he participated and the lawfulness of the ensuing appointment.
Considerations 5-8
Extract:
Preliminarily to examining the other grounds relied on by the complainant, however, the Tribunal will consider his request for the disclosure of the competition documents without any redactions. According to the case law, a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases or intends to base its decision against him, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. It follows that a decision cannot be based on a material document that has been withheld from the concerned staff member. The Tribunal has consistently affirmed the confidentiality of the records of the discussions regarding the merits of the applicants for a post. However, this does not extend to the reports regarding the results of the selection process with appropriate redactions to ensure the confidentiality of third parties (see Judgment 3272, considerations 14 and 15, and the case law cited therein, as well as Judgment 3077, consideration 4). [...]
The IAEA did not disclose to the complainant the evaluator’s notes from the testing process and the related candidates’ identification keys. It considered that, on the basis of Judgment 3272, the discussions of the members of the selection panel concerning the relative merits of the candidates should remain confidential. The Tribunal agrees with this last contention and further determines that the other documents were not inappropriately redacted. Therefore, it will not order the disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews in these proceedings. The request for disclosure is dismissed.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3077, 3272
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 4012
126th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him compensation for the harm allegedly caused to him by the fact that emails that he considers to be defamatory were stored in a folder accessible to all users of the FAO’s IT network.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The emails at issue were communications between Ms T., a Legal Officer, and the complainant’s Division Director, new to the FAO, in which the latter’s managerial concerns in dealing with the complainant were addressed. It is observed that Ms T.’s communications with the Division Director formed part of her official functions that included providing background information and advice to managers. The emails were marked confidential and in the circumstances were, particularly having regard to their subject-matter, private communications. Additionally, there was no publication or deliberate dissemination of the information. However, the filing of confidential personnel information in a publicly accessible email folder constituted a breach of the Organization’s duty to maintain the confidentiality of a staff member’s personnel information. The complainant, however, did not suffer any damage because of this breach. Leaving aside the fact that the complainant did not submit any evidence whatsoever let alone evidence establishing damage to his reputation or otherwise, he contributed to the possibility of a staff member accidently seeing the emails by not divulging the location of the emails when asked by the Administration. As soon as the emails were located, they were immediately removed. Taking this into account, there will be no award of moral damages for the breach.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; duty of care; respect for dignity;
Judgment 4003
126th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant seeks compensation for damages related to her arrest and detention in Libya while on an official mission.
Consideration 15
Extract:
The Tribunal finds that the reasons given in the [...] decision to reject the complainant’s claim for compensation were not supported by the evidence. Moreover, the Registrar relied on documents to which he refused to give the complainant access, while mischaracterizing the findings of those documents in a clear breach of her due process rights. He also misinformed the complainant that he had been ordered to destroy the consultant’s report and therefore could not give her a copy while knowing full well that the disclosure of the report to the complainant had already been approved. This constitutes an act of bad faith. The Registrar’s correspondence with the complainant shows that he repeatedly threatened her with charges of misconduct and possible disciplinary action unless she accepted the ICC’s offer during conciliation proceedings. This was an abuse of power and further evidence of bad faith.
Keywords:
abuse of power; bad faith; confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; misuse of authority;
Judgment 3995
126th Session, 2018
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal considers that IFAD was wrong to refuse the complainant’s request for disclosure of the reports drawn up by the AUO at the end of the investigation into the conduct of the two supervisors targeted by his complaint.
The Tribunal has consistently held that a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all the evidence on which the competent authority bases its decision concerning her or him (see, for example, Judgments 2229, under 3(b), 2700, under 6, 3214, under 24, or 3295, under 13). This implies, amongst other things, that an organisation must forward to a staff member who has filed a harassment complaint the report drawn up at the end of the investigation of that complaint (see, for example, Judgments 3347, under 19 to 21, and 3831, under 17).
Of course, this obligation to disclose must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of some aspects of an inquiry, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the inquiry. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see, in particular, Judgments 3732, under 6, and 3640, under 19 and 20). Moreover, in this case the confidentiality of some information related to the investigation was expressly required by the [applicable] provisions on this matter [...].
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2700, 3214, 3295, 3347, 3640, 3732, 3831
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; harassment;
Judgment 3964
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal for serious misconduct.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Prior to the oral hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, it was revealed that potential witnesses from the IU had been provided with a copy of the complainant’s rejoinder to the Disciplinary Committee. [...] [The EPO] does not seek to explain how the information came into the hands of the potential IU witnesses. It can reasonably be inferred that it happened as a result of the conduct of a member of staff of the EPO and for which the Organisation is responsible. But as noted by the Tribunal in Judgment 3284, consideration 28, how it happened is not of any great significance. What is significant is that the complainant’s confidentiality was not preserved. The complainant is entitled to moral damages assessed in the sum of 4,000 euros as the breach does not appear to be so egregious as the individuals to whom the material was sent were themselves bound to keep it confidential.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3284
Keywords:
confidential evidence; moral injury;
Judgment 3961
125th Session, 2018
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Administrative Council’s implied rejection of his request to order an investigation into the unauthorised public disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those involved.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3948
125th Session, 2018
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The Tribunal [...] considers that IOM should have disclosed to the JARB the documents that it had in its possession, as they could have assisted it to determine whether the reason given for not renewing the complainant’s contract, budgetary constraints, was a valid and objective reason. The documents, appropriately redacted, should also have been disclosed to the complainant. Having not disclosed them, IOM breached due process as well as its duty of care to the complainant.
The rationale for the latter determination can be gleaned from the statements in Judgment 3586, considerations 16 to 20, which may be summarized as follows: in keeping with consistent case law of the Tribunal, a staff member of an international organization must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which an authority bases or intends to base its decision against her or him. In normal circumstances such evidence, which is peculiarly in the organization’s control, cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality unless there is some special case in which a higher interest stands in the way of the disclosure of certain documents. However, such disclosure may not be refused merely in order to strengthen the position of the Administration or one of its officers. The principle of equality of arms must be observed by ensuring that all parties to a case are provided with all of the materials used by an internal adjudicating body, the JARB in this case. The failure to disclose them constitutes a breach of due process, as it would render its examination of the case incomplete and prevent it from properly considering the facts. This would not only violate due process but also the organization’s duty of care causing the impugned decision to be set aside.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; duty of care;
Judgment 3933
125th Session, 2018
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate his appointment.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The first topic concerns the provision to the Appeals Committee of a memorandum setting out the reasons of the Director, CIO for not accepting the complainant’s reassignment to the position of Chief, Global Operations Branch, CIO. The FAO does not contest that the document was provided to the Committee but not the complainant but notes, as the Appeals Committee did in its report, that the document was marked “strictly confidential”. However this does not provide a basis for exceptionally not providing the complainant with a copy of a document, and potentially an important document, in adversarial proceedings such as the internal appeal where the document is relied on by the Organization (see, for example, Judgments 3688, consideration 29, 3586, consideration 16, and 3862, consideration 11). The complainant was entitled to see the evidence advanced by the FAO in the internal appeal in order to equip him to provide rebutting evidence or to otherwise question the evidence or comment on it. The complainant was denied this opportunity. He is entitled to moral damages.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3586, 3688, 3862
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; evidence;
Judgment 3927
125th Session, 2018
Universal Postal Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to suspend her without pay for three months for misconduct.
Consideration 11
Extract:
The complainant was provided with summaries of the interviews of Ms E. and Ms B., as well as her own, and was given ample opportunity to comment on them, of which she availed herself. The auditors found that, in substance, the alleged statements had in fact been made by the complainant, based solely on the three witness testimonies (of Ms B., Ms E. and the complainant). The auditors were tasked only with a fact-finding investigation, so they made no qualitative judgement on the complainant’s statements in question and merely limited themselves to verifying whether or not the incident had occurred. Considering this, and the fact that the complainant had a summarized version of each of the interviews, she had all the evidence on which the authority based its decision (see Judgment 3863, under 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3863
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
Consideration 11
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal stresses that the UPU is mistaken in relying on “confidentiality”, as stated in Staff Rule 110.4, quoted above, as a reason to deny the complainant a copy of either the investigation report or the findings and recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee. Clearly, Staff Rule 110.4(3) can only be interpreted as meaning that the deliberations are confidential and that the consequent reports are not to be published or shared unless or until the documents are relied on in adversarial proceedings, including in steps leading to the imposition of a disciplinary measure. While in the present case, the complainant had much of the information needed to defend herself (as the investigation was confined to the three witness interviews, of which she had summary copies), the only way to properly ensure that a staff member has been fully informed of all the evidence and other elements of the case against her or him, on which the authority has based or intends to base its decision, is to supply her or him with the pertinent documents. The UPU failed to do so and, in the result, the complainant is entitled to moral damages which the Tribunal assesses at 10,000 Swiss francs.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; inquiry; investigation;
Judgment 3907
125th Session, 2018
International Criminal Court
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish her post and terminate her fixed-term appointment.
Consideration 28
Extract:
The ICC has made submissions with respect to the confidentiality of evidence that has been submitted by the complainant to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken note of these submissions and has referred to the evidence it considers necessary to achieve justice between the parties.
Keywords:
confidential evidence;
Judgment 3881
124th Session, 2017
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant him sick leave after his dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he complainant’s confidentiality was breached when, without his consent, the certificate [...], which mentioned the nature of his incapacity, was disclosed to the Appeals Committee with the FAO’s reply in the internal appeal proceedings. The information it contained was then specifically repeated in the Appeals Committee’s report to the Director-General. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the FAO breached the complainant’s right to privacy when confidential medical information concerning the nature of his incapacity was passed to third parties. This aspect of the complaint is therefore well founded and the complainant will be awarded [...] moral damages in the circumstances.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; medical certificate; moral injury; right to privacy;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
